ReviewHematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program2020
Can pregnancy-adapted algorithms avoid diagnostic imaging for pulmonary embolism?
Review in Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prenatal computed tomography (CT) and risk of congenital heart disease and cerebral palsy: A nationwide mother-child paired cohort study.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism during Pregnancy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Diagnostic Management of Pregnant Women With Suspected Pulmonary Embolism.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Determining the diagnostic value of three clinical criteria Wells', YEARS and modified Geneva in pregnant women with suspected pulmonary thromboembolism.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2022Article
- Assessing the clinical probability of pulmonary embolism during pregnancy: The Pregnancy-Adapted Geneva (PAG) score.Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The low prevalence of pulmonary embolism (PE) among pregnant patients presenting with suspected PE implies that most of these patients will be found not have the disease. Given this low prevalence, excluding PE in this population has necessitated the use of sensitive and specific diagnostic imaging, such as computed tomography pulmonary angiography or ventilation-perfusion scanning. Recent studies suggest that a clinical prediction rule with D-dimer testing can also be used to exclude a subset of pregnant patients with suspected PE without the need for diagnostic imaging. The YEARS criteria, which consist of clinical signs and symptoms of deep venous thrombosis, hemoptysis, and PE as the most likely diagnosis (a subjective variable), combined with selective D-dimer levels, seem to safely exclude up to one-third of these patients without imaging. The revised Geneva rule using objective variables, combined with nonpregnancy cutoffs for D-dimer levels, offers some promise, although fewer patients avoided imaging (14%). These recent studies provide evidence in support of radiation avoidance for some patients; however, for most, imaging remains the only option. Future studies should focus on improving the safety and techniques of imaging modalities, in addition to improving the specificity of D-dimer testing and objective prediction rules. Studies assessing patients' and physicians' values, preferences, and risk perceptions are also required to assist clinicians in shared decision making when counseling pregnant patients with suspected PE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.